among those "certain doctrines so settled by the faith of the church that they are no longer open questions. They are finally adjudged and determined beyond all rational or innocent dispute." They are now supplying all the stimulus to the Christian's exertions to save souls from death. I repeat it, so far we are agreed. I beseech you, then, let not these questions be confounded with those which follow.

But at this point there is discovered a remarkable divergence. The friends of Christ and the gospel separate into two distinct bodies. There are questions upon which, against the usually received interpretation, we see a strong band of able, self-denying men opposing a different interpretation. Their zeal is wide awake. They point you to a host of witnesses for their belief in every past age of the church. They call on their brethren as with the voice of a trumpet.

Now, these interpretations which they propose are generally regarded with coldness. Some affect to sneer at them. They

are systematically excluded from most of our popular religious journals. Many regard them as not at all practical. Brethren, I know not what you think, but to my mind the question of the truth or the falsity of these views enters into the very life of the church's progress, of her comfort, of her proper success. I confess that I cannot see how they can be neglected. Bear with me. then, while in the next place, I present three of these points with a little detail.

1. The first respects what has been called the "BIBLE LAW OF MISSIONS."* Is there any such law? What is it? Is it indispensable? Or may it be disregarded? These questions divide us.

On the one side, the practical belief is that in efforts at evangelizing the world,

* We take pleasure in referring the reader on this subject to the first volume of the Jewish Chronicle for a series of excellent articles, doubtless from the pen of the late editor, the Rev. John Lillie. At the same time we express our obligations to this source for the aid by which we are enabled to state succinctly several of the points at issue on this question.

the distinction between Jew and Gentile is to be discarded. Prominent efforts, and indeed even separate missions for the Jews, if not scouted, are undervalued. It is intimated that the middle wall of partition is broken down; that Gentiles are admitted as fellow heirs; and hence, that the Jew, in the eye of the gospel, has lost both his nationality and his privileges.

On the other side, it is maintained that the Jews are to be regarded now, as they have ever been, as "the children of the kingdom;" whereas, Gentiles are they who shall

come from the north and from the south, from the east and from the west, and sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven." Matt. viii. 12. Paul declares them still " beloved for the fathers' sakes," and "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." Rom. xi. 28, 29. These men say "that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision, for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers," Rom. xv. 8, whereas the Gentiles are received as "aliens into

the commonwealth of Israel:" Eph. ii. 12. -that the Jew has "much advantage every way:" Rom. iii. 1, 2. "to him pertaineth the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises," Rom. ix. 4, and hence, that in this sense there is a marked distinction.

One side argues, because "Christ crucified is the wisdom of God and the power of God" to both Jew and Greek, Rom. i. 16, that, therefore, when the church, recognising, in her efforts at conversion, no distinction, or indeed even practically passing by the Jew, simply proclaims the gospel indiscriminately, she has done her duty.

The other declares that "the gospel of Christ is the wisdom of God and the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, but yet to the Jew first." Rom. i. 16. These men point us to Christ's rule to his apostles as imperative in all ages and of universal obligation. "This gospel must be preached among all nations beginning at Jerusalem." They hence argue that "it is

necessary that the gospel should first be spoken unto the Jew." We are pressed by the fact that the first preachers of the gospel followed this rule invariably-followed it after repulse upon repulse-followed it although (as in the case of Paul and Barnabas) apostles to the Gentiles themselves, -followed it just as much as ever, even after that memorable announcement:

66 It was

necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo! we turn to the Gentiles," Acts xiii. 46, as their proceedings in the very next city, Iconium, testify, Acts xiv. 1, followed it up to the last voice of warning which closes the Bible history. Acts xxviii. 20-31.

The one side declares that the threatenings and the rewards of the gospel are presented with equal fulness and in the same way to Jew and Gentile indiscriminately.

The other preaches that God, in his judgment, will render "indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish to every soul of man,